Phantom 2,533 Posted January 27, 2009 Steve Jobs Reportedly Under the Knife at Stanford Hospital Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted February 24, 2009 Health Concerns Rise Again As Steve Jobs Skips Apple Shareholder Meeting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,533 Posted February 25, 2009 He's 54 today Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted February 25, 2009 He's 54 today The big question is whether he'll reach 55... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N. Fritz 49 Posted February 26, 2009 Editorial from PC World re: absence from Shareholder's Meeting http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/arti...n_to_apple.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Typhoid Harry 23 Posted February 26, 2009 Statistics 101 All statistics are meaningless 1. Sample size - In medical studies, as with all scientific testing, results should withstand rigorous scrutiny. Studies should therefore be based on an adequate sample size. 2. Average - Is just a word in the dictionary. Forget qualitative, think quantitative. Example: The Gaussian distribution A symmetrical distribution based around a mean. This means that 50% of the population lie ABOVE the mean. If the average survival rate of disease X was 5 years then 50% of the population would, on average, live longer than five years, assuming of course the population follows a Gaussian distribution. (The distribution could be wider than that with confidence intervals set many years after that "average magic year of death". 3. 57% of statistics are made up on the spot. 4. Statistics in the hands of laymen can and generally are (mis)interpreted any which way they like. The media are especially evil in this respect (revisit MMR sites for confirmation). 5. 65-85% five year survival rate means that between 65 to 85% live to AT LEAST five years beyond diagnosis. Steve Jobs having being diagnosed in 2004, arbitrarily lets say Jan 2004, means that he has survived 5 years so far and thus not in the 15-35% of population that are expected to die before the fifth year. From this statement we do not know what the distribution is like nor can we infer anything more. Seeing all the data is critical, diagrams help, though stats can be manipulated just ask any government. Qualitative statements do not give the full picture. 6. Steve Jobs is on my DDP team All statistics are meaningless. QED Statistically speaking, and you should never use statistics to determine your unique case, the type of cancer Jobs had/has has a 65-85% five year survival rate. Yeah, but he was diagnosed in 2004.... Unless you cut and pasted this (and I can't be asked to check) I'm impressed. 98% of all statistics are wrong would have been sufficient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
honez 79 Posted February 27, 2009 I can't be asked to check Please check. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadtowrites 2 Posted February 27, 2009 Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips. Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
To die for 3 Posted February 27, 2009 Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips. Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us? Mostly dead Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarolAnn 926 Posted February 27, 2009 Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips. Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us? Not giving a sh*t? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Youth in Asia 1,086 Posted February 28, 2009 Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips. Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us? Not giving a sh*t? He has HIV, not cancer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarolAnn 926 Posted February 28, 2009 Seeing as you asked, of course I wrote it. Misinterpretation of statistics is a dangerous thing, left in the hands of certain journalists it can lead to wide spread panic. However he probably has had his (silicon) chips. Regards your figure of 98%, may I refer you to point 3. If only 57% of statistics are made up on the spot there is a greater chance that more than 2% of statistics are right thus rendering your 98% of all statistics are wrong as tosh. Of course, either my point 3 or your 98% could have been made up on the spot rendering them both tosh. Indeed, if your 98% was in fact party to the comment that 98% of all statistics are wrong then where does that leave us? Not giving a sh*t? He has HIV, not cancer. He is known to have cancer. The HIV status is unprovem. There is "leaked document" information on Wikileak that purports to be his medical records. Wikileak says, "Due to the contradictory dates, possible evidence of forgery, strong motivations for fabrication, and few motivations for a legitimate revelation, the images should not be taken at face value." Page here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eejit 9 Posted April 29, 2009 He has failed to make a meeting with his local council that he was committed to attending. Steve Jobs too weak to attend city council meeting Constant trickle of stories over the year means I am gutted that he is not on my list. Will he make it to 2010? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paul Bearer 6,101 Posted June 20, 2009 A pound of liver please? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
time 8,597 Posted August 20, 2009 Sunday Times profile. Not too much on the health front, but an interesting read nonetheless (imo). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
time 8,597 Posted September 9, 2009 Steve's back out in public Bloomberg Report & Pictures Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrRon Posted September 10, 2009 Steve iPod appear to have had a heart attackhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/03/st...t_attack_rumor/ That is you can trust these sources LOL Razor (the WYSIWYG editor appears broken :+( ) I just read that Richard Burton died in Switzerland of a heart attack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 2,112 Posted September 10, 2009 Steve iPod appear to have had a heart attackhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/03/st...t_attack_rumor/ That is you can trust these sources LOL Razor (the WYSIWYG editor appears broken :+( ) I just read that Richard Burton died in Switzerland of a heart attack. Really, I thought he died of a brain hemorrhage... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
honez 79 Posted January 28, 2010 Does anyone else think Steve Jobs looked decidedly unwell at today's iPad launch? Compare this with this image two years ago Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VSBfromH 74 Posted January 28, 2010 Does anyone else think Steve Jobs looked decidedly unwell at today's iPad launch? That's one strike against the US health system at least! He's obviously had to spend so much of his vast wealth on his treatment he hasn't been able to afford a new outfit! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TAFKAG 70 Posted January 17, 2011 Jobs takes 'medical leave'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theyiddo 0 Posted January 17, 2011 Yeah, not looking good for him...."medical leave". I'd say he should last a while though, but he's definitely a potential Deathlist iLight for 2012. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spade_Cooley 9,518 Posted January 17, 2011 iNterred Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Saint Peter 14 Posted January 17, 2011 Yeah, not looking good for him...."medical leave". I'd say he should last a while though, but he's definitely a potential Deathlist iLight for 2012. Me thinks he has escaped the clutches of DL, he won't be around to get on the list !!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DevonDeathTrip 2,358 Posted February 16, 2011 The Daily Mail have just removed a story from their website which said Steve Jobs has been told he only has six weeks to live. Edit - they've republished the article, I don't think the original paid sufficient props to their source - the ever reliable National Enquirer! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...weeks-live.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
